Latest MET Prediction: Large Scale Cooling, Warming at High Latitudes

h/t The Express – The British MET have forecast that large areas of the world will cool over the next 5 years, though they still expect global average temperatures to remain high. Of course, they also still claim that CO2 is in the driving seat.

Spatial patterns suggest enhanced warming over land and at high northern latitudes. There is some indication of continued cool conditions in the Southern Ocean, and of relatively cool conditions in the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre. Uncertainties in the forecast are considerable: for the period 2016-2020 most regions are expected to be warmer than the average of 1981 to 2010, but regional cooling is possible over much of the Southern Ocean and the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre. Differences with our forecast issued last year are expected because the updated forecast has been made with an upgraded version of our model. Nevertheless, both forecasts suggest relatively cool conditions in the Southern Ocean and the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre although the magnitude of the anomalies is smaller in the updated forecast. Further forecasts from other international modelling centres are available from the multi-model decadal forecast exchange.

During the five-year period 2016-2020, global average temperature (see blue shading in Figure 3 below) is expected to remain between 0.28°C and 0.77°C (90% confidence range) above the long-term 1981-2010 mean (0.88°C to 1.37°C relative to pre-industrial conditions represented by the period 1850 to 1900). The warmest individual year in the 160-year Met Office Hadley Centre global temperature record is 2015 with a temperature of 0.44 ± 0.1 °C above the 1981-2010 mean. Averaged over the whole five-year period 2016-2020, global average temperature is expected to be between 0.42°C and 0.67°C above the 1981-2010 mean (1.02°C to 1.27°C relative to pre-industrial conditions).

The forecast is for continued global warming largely driven by continued high levels of greenhouse gases. However, other changes in the climate system, including the largest El Niño since 1997 and longer term shifts in both the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), are also contributing. Near record temperatures are predicted for the coming five years, consistent with the Met Office annual global temperature forecast. However, the recent run of consecutive record years is likely to end in 2017 as El Niño declines. The forecast remains towards the mid to upper end of the range simulated by CMIP5 models that have not been initialised with observations (green shading in Figure 3). Barring a large volcanic eruption or a very sudden return to La Niña or negative AMO conditions which could temporarily cool climate, ten year global average warming rates are likely to return to late 20th century levels within the next two years. Nevertheless, the recent slowdown in surface warming is still an active research topic and trends over a longer (15 year) period will take longer to respond. For further discussion on the surface warming slowdown see the Met Office reports on the recent pause in warming and on big changes underway in the climate system.

The last paragraph is interesting. The MET don’t know what caused the pause. They acknowledge the cooling effects they have identified could be substantial enough to drag down global average temperatures. The MET still think CO2 is driving a dangerously rapid rise in global temperatures, they’re just not sure when the temperatures will actually rise.

174 thoughts on “Latest MET Prediction: Large Scale Cooling, Warming at High Latitudes”

Yes, and no. It is like this: “Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn’t bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don’t believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don’t have a dog.”

Yes I have seen your reply. First question, yes the weather has been fairly warm here in Florida over the last few days, thank you. Second, if the new SSNs help your chart then fine. But I defer to the opinion of someone who has proven he knows a lot more than both of us in these matters so when he changes his views on your wiggle matching then I will. Nothing personal you know.

Hi Tom over in Florida
You said: “Are you afraid the new numbers will make your wiggle matching not so matching?”
My reply was that new numbers provide even better amplitude match
You raised objection then, made an unfair comment without ever bothering to find out what Svalgaard data looks like, and for good measure you’ve just done it again, since at no time I asked you to change your views on anything, only answered your question (quoted above) as politely as I could.

No, they apparently reworked their failed model and are now giving a prediction (if I understand correctly) that has a margin of error of +/- 117% of the total temperature rise measured during the base period 1981-2010 { (0.28°C + 0.77°C)/2 prediction = 0.525°C –> 0.525°C/(0.65°C – 0.2°C) rise = 117% }

So before the expected la nina, they are going to go out on a limb and predict some widespread cooling?
Wow, kind of going way out on a limb, aren’t they?
Glad they remembered to bow to their global warming masters while they were at it. Anything else would be downright unclimatescientific.

Hey Moa,
# Oooooh sareful!
Some of the sweet religionist folk would have it as a real crime, it looks, with your brains exploding if you do not kow-tow to the present and terrifyingly-visible God-head.

I know I’m not smart enough to understand this global warming b.s., but on the subject of “El Nina”/La Nina specifically; how exactly does the accumulation of warm water on the West side of the Pacific which moves to the East side translate into a “global” temperature rise? If someone can explain that to me I will be forever in their debt. Or until doomsday at least, which is imminent apparently. Doesn’t the Eastward movement of this warm surface water coincide with cooler temps in the Western Pacific that more or less balance out?

Worry not, grasshopper. Though it will continue to be mild to cooler in your neck of the woods, the temperatures will be off the chart jungle steaming hot everywhere in the world where no people happen to live, keeping the planet average temperature slightly above what it was when half the surface was still molten.

“Though it will continue to be mild to cooler in your neck of the woods,”
Only if you live in the Southern Ocean or the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre. The predictions are quite specific. They did not say “some areas will be cool and others hot, so whatever happens we will be covered” They said specifically where the cool areas are expected.

So the forecast for the next five years is for elevated global temperatures driven by high levels of greenhouse gasses. But do they expect the levels of greenhouse gasses to decline after five years from now? No. They do not. So, if they believe their theory why only a five year forecast? What silliness.

It is a very sensible comment because in 2007 the IPCC reported that global temperature was expected to rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system. But global temperature has not risen since 2000 (nor since 1999) and the MET now predicts little if any global temperature rise in the 5 years before 2021 while GHG emissions continue.

I explain this and its importance (i.e. the MET is saying all projections of global temperature are wrong) in a post that has ‘vanished’ and has not yet appeared so I will ask the Mods. to seek it.

“According to climate scientists, it is actually EASIER to predict the long term than the short term. This, of course, is just what they say and has no value.”
I don’t believe you. Please show me where this has been said. You must of course be aware that some things that occur further in the future are easier to predict than other things that will occur soon. It is easy for me to predict average temperatures will be higher here in July than they are now. It is not easy for me to predict tomorrows weather accurately.

It is easy for me to predict tomorrows global temperature extremely accurately if I know today’s global temperature accurately. It is succesively harder for me to predict global temperature every day after this.

What you are saying is that climate scientists claim the same thing is easier to predict for the long term than the short term. I do not believe this to be the case.

Richardscourtney -your comment, however accurate it may be, is a non sequitur. It does not address the point that the forecast is said to be silly becasue they did not predict more than 5 years ahead.

If you believe this, you should take up your point with Professor Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London, who has made precisely this claim. According to her, the long-term (multiple decades) movement of climate (code for the primacy of CO2 forcing, needless to say) is better understood that short-term movements.

This contention is obviously absurd – indeed, hearing it advanced on the BBC first made me question the consensus several years ago -, but she is not alone in thinking it, in warmist circles at least.

Richardscourtney -your comment, however accurate it may be, is a non sequitur. It does not address the point that the forecast is said to be silly becasue they did not predict more than 5 years ahead.

The only non sequitur was your response to me that I have quoted.
This is not surprising because all your carping in this thread is silly.

The facts of your accusation of illogicality are as follows.

kevin kilty wrote saying in total

So the forecast for the next five years is for elevated global temperatures driven by high levels of greenhouse gasses. But do they expect the levels of greenhouse gasses to decline after five years from now? No. They do not. So, if they believe their theory why only a five year forecast? What silliness.

Clearly, kevin kilty was asserting that “only a five year forecast” was inconsistent with them having a belief in their theory, but you replied saying in total

Because obviously it is just as easy to predict 20 years as it is to predict 5 years. What an utterly silly comment.

I pointed out that the sillyness was yours saying to you

It is a very sensible comment because in 2007 the IPCC reported that global temperature was expected to rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system. But global temperature has not risen since 2000 (nor since 1999) and the MET now predicts little if any global temperature rise in the 5 years before 2021 while GHG emissions continue.

The IPCC reported predictions of “two decades” were the norm as recently as 2007 and, therefore, kevin kilty was right so the only non sequitur was your response to me.

Richard
1) “The norm” does not mean easier. Even if it was the norm, longer term predictions are less certain than shorter term ones.
2) The IPCC predictions of global temperature are totally different from this forecast. This forecast includes global temperatures but is much more detailed. In other words, you are comparing apples to pears.
3) Even if this was the same type of prediction, it would not invalidate a 5 year forecast, nor would it be silly to make one.

Fen Tiger.
What was stated is not absurd. I understand long term (annual) changes in temperature, I do not understand short term fluctuations nearly as well. Without commenting on whether the long-term (multiple decades) movement of climate is actually better understood that short-term movements, it is entirely reasonable that this would be the case. All it is saying is that we understand the trend but we don’t understand what we often label as the noise. It is because we don’t inderstand it that we call it noise.

Richard. The comment was silly because it is a mistake to say it is silly to make a 5 year prediction instead of a 10 year prediction. I explained in detail why it is not silly to make a 5 year and not a 10 year prediction. You then argue (as near as I can make out) that because some people have made 20 year predictions about average global temperatures, then anyone must be silly to make a 5 year prediction about anything climate related. Nowhere has anyone explained why it is silly to make a 5 year forecast in this instance.

Today I heard the weather forecast for the next two days. I did not think “What silliness! If they believe the same factors will affect the weather next week then why not forecast for 5 days? Anyway, that must be true because I heard a 5 day forecast the other day.”

Compare that with this exchange and point out any significant differences that support your case.

The original claim was that if the Met Office believed one of the factors (CO2) was not going to decrease it was silliness to produce only a 5 year forecast and not a longer one. How does that differ from my weather forecast example? The only way is for the Met office to believe in a simple direct relationship between CO2 and temperatures all over the world. Since that is obviously not the case, I contend that the comment is sillier than the forecast.

The original contention that a longer forecast should have been made simply because CO2 is not predicted to fall is unsupportable, as a brief consideration would reveal. Yet you insist on trying to support it anyway.

According to climate scientists, it is actually EASIER to predict the long term than the short term. This, of course, is just what they say and has no value.

To be fair it’s probably true. Over the long term, natural cycles will even out whereas the trends over shorter periods of a decade or so can be an influenced by ENSO and suchlike.

To use analogy: If you were to push a large rock over the edge of a cliff you might not be able to predict it’s change in altitude above sea level accurately over small time intervals but you could probably predict that it will reach the bottom of the cliff eventually. In this case, therefore, It’s easier to make an accurate “long” term prediction than a shorter term prediction.

CMIP5 was supposed the latest greatest climate model developed between 2006 and 2011. It specifically predicted a pattern of warming in the North Atlantic sub polar gyre and southern ocean. This it turns out was wrong and they are now predicting cooling in those locations. But the science is still settled of course.

AGW:………………………………………………….(2 years later)……..It is warming at the upper latitudes.

SR: Back to Santa. Just who do you expect to believe your silly fairy tale, A.G.?

AGW: Well, Santa believes.

SR: Oh, boy, we are really having a world class debate, here, aren’t we? (eye roll)

AGW: “The debate is over.”

Earth: Well, (chuckle <– a combination of a dolphin’s laugh and the roar of a male lion amplified to the level of Iguasu Falls) I will have the last word. (more laughter) George Carlin got it. Why don’t they all? Humans. Amusing, appalling at times, vain, little creatures. And forgetful (ooo, boy) – they can never seem to remember how BIG I am.. (chuckle) AS IF their puny emissions can significantly affect ME. LOL.

Well…. it sounds, Knute, ……. like you would be a great Santa! No need to audition! We will provide you with your own trailer and lots of hay and oats for your reindeer (a.k.a. “pets”) and Mrs. Claus for the pleasure of her company! Don’t already have a Mrs. Claus? Well, no problem! We will provide you with one! ….. YES, to live with her, you have to marry her…. none of that, no, siree, you are playing SAINT Nick, after all!!

My gawd, there is so much potential in satire. I could give hockey sticks to the world. Hide the data in the Arctic under a Viking ruin. Have my reindeer fail to rescue obese polar bears. Deliver coal to Gore.

We’ve come a long way in 500 years. (sarc)
Here’s what the experts were saying in 1484:
“However, it has been found that witches have freely confessed that they have done such things, and there are various instances of it, which could be mentioned, in addition to what has already been said. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; and so no doubt at all remains on these points. ”
Back then, no parody was necessary, (or allowed). Since the thing that we seek to parody is more dumb than any potential parody
Whereas nowadays, with such absurd theater as Michael Mann’s pathetic squirming and then reinvention as saintly martyr and victim of a vast and mysterious conspiracy undertaken by the providers of gasoline, or Lews belief that science should ideally be conducted in secret by an exclusive privileged clique, whilst criticizing those who gravitate towards conspiratorial ideation, or the perfectly executed subversive brainwashing campaign which has convince the ordinary MSM consumer to believe that extreme cold events and record antarctic sea ice are “proof” of “global warming” – no parody is necessary, (or allowed). Since the thing that we seek to parody is more dumb than any potential parody.
It’s like deja vu, all over again…http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/mm02a15a.htm

To get egregiously snarky, the UK Met office seems to have the same problem as NASA GISS–they have their heads so far up their butts they see teeth. This has a very strong element of “I believe” in the CAUSE of global warming, and how do I fit the report into that system.

@ Tom Halla @6:39 pm “they have their heads so far up their butts they see teeth”.:
nope they got their heads so far under the sand only their heels show! (more civilized but I got the point with laughter!)

“During the five-year period 2016-2020, global average temperature (see blue shading in Figure 3 below) is expected to remain between 0.28°C and 0.77°C (90% confidence range) above the long-term 1981-2010 mean (0.88°C to 1.37°C relative to pre-industrial conditions represented by the period 1850 to 1900).”

So the mean temperature of the pre-industrial conditions represented by the period 1850 to 1900 has been established with a 90% confidence?? How stupid do they think we are?

I think they covered all the bases.
Any kind of temperature / weather / climate you can imagine will be “consistent” with this, subject to a bit of hand-waving to flick away whatever discrepancies those evil d*ni*rs point out.

Kick the can five years down the road, plenty of justification for a big increase in “research” spending, five years closer to receiving their gold plated pensions, what’s not to like?

Only thing that might make the MET and their fellow scammers pause, would be five years of the way things always were:-Eternal springtime except for white Christmases.

It seemed sensible to me. I do not know what point Betapug was trying to make. One possibility was that Betapug believed the Met office did not know this and was pointing it out. This seems unlikely, but not impossible, hence the question.

Alternatively Betapug may believe that the Met office does not understand the difference between main greenhouse gas and main driver of change. This seems equally unlikely.

I am at a loss to understand what betapug was trying to convey. Perhaps Betapug could clarify?

Mark -is that to me? My beliefs do not matter to this point. I am trying to establish what point Betapug was trying to make. The only way it makes sense to me is if betapug has not appreciated the difference between principle gas responsible for greenhouse effect and principle driver of change.

Well that makes perfect sense , much like saying that the flea upon the elephant’s ass is in charge of running the circus. Some days he has more influence than others.

true, true.
One must however, in truth, make sure the flea is not capable of transmitting infections through the elephant …
A flea bite is small, but can kill sometimes and always will bite everytime.
An elephant bite, should it chose to do so, will kill.

The met climate guys are an utterly loopy band of random witch doctors. Every year they predict that OMG Essex will be a desert within five years or the next year OMG Essex will be a swamp within two years. They just keep on and on and on and are of no more consequence to the average man than the ranting soapbox bloke on Sunday evening saying ‘the end is nigh’. It’s as though you were talking to your kindly but a bit odd Uncle who was telling you that his ‘soopa secwet computah pwogwam’ could predict the outcome in a game of Pooh sticks in a waterfall.

Come 2020 they will produce an anlysis of ho waccurate the prediction was, just as they did in 2015

You and everyone else will be able to see how good it was. The 2010 is not bad, considering the complexity of the system. If the cool and warm parts are not what they say we will all be able to see, so they won’t be able to say “told you so!” unless they are correct.

Come 2020 they will produce an anlysis of ho waccurate the prediction was

No! Come 2020 they will produce a comparison of their prediction with whatever they have then altered their time series of global temperature anomaly to be.

And after the ‘adjustments’ observed global warming will certainly NOT achieve the required global temperature anomaly rise of 0.4°C since 2000 that was reported as “committed warming” by the IPCC in 2007.

Also important is that the discrepancy of HadCRUT with satellite data is becoming embarrassing (see here) especially when the troposphere was predicted to warm faster than the ‘surface’.

“the 2010 is not bad considering the complexity of the system”
oh dear. it was wrong, very wrong. in fact so wrong it is comical. only in climate “science” could something so wrong be deemed “not bad”. you are delusional . do you work for the met office by any chance?

Yes, but they homogenized and elevated the numbers since 2010. That’s the game. NOAA and GISS did the same. Skewed the temperatures higher in the last few years and then claimed a record!! I know you understand this

“it was wrong, very wrong. in fact so wrong it is comical. only in climate “science” could something so wrong be deemed “not bad”. you are delusional”
All models are wrong – we have established that. They got most of the world within 5-95% confidence limits – the hatched areas are those outside. Clearly not perfect, but it would could have been a lot worse. Given the complexity it looks “not bad” to me. One might disgree about what constitutes bad, but it is not delusional to think this is not bad.

A model is right when it provides outputs with accuracy and precision within their estimated range of inherent errors.
and
A model is wrong when it provides outputs with accuracy and precision within their estimated range of inherent errors.

If by “models” you mean ‘climate models’ then, yes, it is demonstrated that they are all wrong.

Scientific models are rejected for use when they are observed to be wrong.

Translation: “We admit we’ve used up every conceivable stunt to pump up the post 1998 surface-measured record and we’ve nothing left in the bag. It’s back to ‘pause talk’, now that the Paris conference is behind us. With careful application of doublespeak and general obfuscation (and barring another Little Ice Age) we should be able to keep this AGW gravy-train on the tracks for another couple of decades and into a comfortable retirement.”

1. A mass movement by scientists to regain credibility by posting all raw data in a common repository. Disclosure of raw data is required anyway if you use public money.
2. Global deflation will prioritize funds.

Perhaps there is a robust business opportunity to establish it. Much like establishing standard methods and the rigor involved in validating them, there could be a market for such a thing.

Perhaps we need to sink lower for the need to present itself. It’s obvious to my little brain that a dependence on science to “save the people” which results in being dead wrong will drive the avocation to its roots.

Unfortunately they cannot do that. The CRU at the University of East Anglia has specifically said they lost it when they moved or maybe the dog ate it along with their homework but they definitely cant release it. Of course this has nothing to do with the Climategate email in which a leading climate scientist stated he would sooner delete it than release it under a FOI application.

My thought is that if science is to save its eroding credibility it first and foremost needs to reestablish transparency. As you are aware today’s peer review is broken.

Essentially, the goal is to push the restart button. Imagine setting up a group that laid out a platform which held fast to the concept of releasing all raw data (except personal identifiers unless agreed to) to any research that was submitted for review. Imagine taking that one step further to post real time data as the experiment was being conducted.

And yes, many would squawk about this and that but the current path is obviously not working because people are cheating.

There hasn’t been a global warming trend in almost 20 years, and with: a coming La [Nina] around 2018/19, the PDO entering its 30-yr cool cycle in 2008, the AMO entering its 30-yr cool cycle around 2022, the current solar cycle the weakest since 1906 and the next one starting in 2022 expected to be the weakest the Dalton Minimum (1790~1820), the only option is to warn of coming CO2 induced… cooling…

Hmmm…. The disparity between CAGW projections vs. reality are already off by 2 standard deviations and no global warming trend for 20 years, which is already sufficient divergence and duration to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis. It’s likely that over the next 5 years, the divergence could exceed 3 standard deviations with no global warming trend for 25+ years….

It’s time to call it a day on the biggest and most expensive scientific scam in human history…

All the fabricated raw-data adjustments and lame excuses for why the CAGW hypothesis has failed so miserably are getting tedious and embarrassing…

I just spent 2 weeks in this and that meeting with various big money decision makers. None, zero, nada question the concensus on CAGW. In fact, even mentioning concepts such as natural variability ruffled the feathers, quickened pulses and was quickly brushed off. I have to admit I am shocked at the blindness of otherwise thoughtful people.

What a peculiar chart. How did 1998 end up cooler than 2015? Didn’t the creator of it listen to NASA-GISS? They published the absolute temperature in 1998 years ago. The popularity of anomaly charts now seems to be disguising the fact that ’98 was, before adjustments, warmer than all years since.

And what the heck is up with all the confidence variation? How could they have confidence that is highly variable in adjacent years? What, they trust the instruments more in some years than others?

Looks like plenty of warming to come which makes a nonsense of this posts headline of large scale cooling.

OK, here’s the headline.

Latest MET Prediction: Large Scale Cooling, Warming at High Latitudes

And here’s the text (written by the MET office) that supports that headline.

There is some indication of continued cool conditions in the Southern Ocean, and of relatively cool conditions in the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre.

The Southern Ocean and the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre constitute a large portion of the globe. It is accurate to say ‘Large Scale Cooling’. Note that the headline isn’t referring to the global average temperature. Note also that the MET is predicting cooling from current levels after 2017 and in that case they are referring to the global average temperature.

There’s nothing wrong with the headline. It is an accurate statement of what the MET office said.

The headline appears to be misleading, and some commenters here seem to have been mislead. It is not actually wrong, but it conveys the wrong message. The article forecasts warming, not cooling, as that graph clearly shows.

Why is the headline misleading? It is because the main point in the headline is not the main point in the article. A reasonable summary of the article would be “Warming predicted, but with some extensive areas of relative cool.” To represent this as “Extensive areas of cooling, with some areas of warming” conveys a very different message, and suggests the cooling is the point.

Heap big warmy come.
Very very cold soon.
As I read the posted material, I kept wondering if this was a parody of the heap big warmy parody.
Otherwise examining the entrails of small animals would provide as accurate a forecast as this work of art.
Sure evidence we are currently governed by fools and bandits.

[The mods are worried about the heap big warmy things that keep coming out in the elephant and flea conversations, and that entails. ….mod]

Does the sentence
“Differences with our forecast issued last year are expected because the updated forecast has been made with an upgraded version of our model. ”
mean that the model change is responsible for the differences with NO input of data since the previous year?
If so then it would seem data is irrelevant!

Classic British Civil Service (although Met is ostensibly no longer government/state run) doublespeak. The Met Office is just covering its backside, so whatever happens it can claim it predicted it. Clueless.

And to think there was a time when the Met Office’s scientists and forecaster’s predictions were trusted. D-Day went ahead on the basis of a very accurate call from the Met Office’s predecessor.

But back then the Met office had to answer to Eisenhower, Monty and Churchill , men with little patience for incompetents . Now they only have to answer to Cameron, not a man of any detectable stature .

Group Capt Stagg called the 6 June weather, based on weather data collected by US and British Met teams all over the N Atlantic. The US teams’ view was to go on 5 June, the British later in June. There was a weather window on 6 June, but few considered it stable or long enough. Based on local knowledge and his own experience, Stagg called it.

From History Channel webpage: “…Weeks later, Stagg sent Eisenhower a memo noting that had D-Day been pushed to later in June, the Allies would have encountered the worst weather in the English Channel in two decades. “I thank the Gods of War we went when we did,” Eisenhower scribbled on the report. He could also have been thankful for Stagg overruling the advice of the American meteorologists who wanted to go on June 5 as planned, which Ross says would have been a disaster….”

Far too many Hollywood versions of WW2 around, with the Yanks doing everything. Try Enigma and the movie made about that for example.

“most regions are expected to be warmer than the average of 1981 to 2010, but regional cooling is possible…”

It sounds to me like they’re scheming to maintain the global-warming narrative in the face of coming cooling. The story will be, “Yes, it seems cooler where you live, but the rest of the world is getting warmer. You’re local climate is just an anomaly.” They’re hoping that will be enough to quench the curiosity of anyone who notices that “adjusted” temperature data sets continue to show warming while their own observations show cooling. So repeat after me: “Cooling is local. Warming is global.”

The latest imperative from the climate fearosphere is to discredit satellite data, since it undermines such sound bite distortions such as “warmest year ever recorded”. The current attempt goes something like this: “Satellites don’t measure temperatures directly and the data must then be greatly massaged to get an answer, so therefore satdat can’t be trusted.”
Of course, “measure temps directly” is a rabbit hole, since not even thermometers measure temperature directly.
.

Sounds a bit like ‘Hello Mr Pot have you met Mr Kettle?’ to me. The disparity between the two types of temp records is becoming a noticeable embarrassment the more they keep fiddling the surface records to create warming.

. The MET Office doesn’t know what caused the embarrassing pause and hope that it will go away, really soon. They think the future could be cooler but that this will be caused by something really, really, big and natural, fighting against the inexorable warming effects of CO2. However the MET Office still knows that CO2 is a really dangerous gas driving a very rapid rise in global temperatures, sometime in the future, really soon, in the future, but quite soon. So stay panicked.

The met office predict rain – and when it rains they claim their forecast was 100% accurate.
The met office predict rain and sun – and when it rains they claim 100% accuracy as they predicted rain – and when the sun shines its 100%accuracy.
The met office predict global warming and global cooling, and floods and droughts and high winds and calm and they are always 100% accurate.

Nothing new about the MetOffice’s cooling forecast It has been on my since 2011. Anyone who clicked on Contents could see the forecast ‘future is cool’.
Some time ago the MO was introduced to a proper method for calculating annual temperatures (sort of ‘cul-de-sac’ acknowledgement, but no thanks), now they are learning how to do longer range forecasting. The CO2 thing is just a cover for their past ineptness in forecasting. I am pleased that they found some of my work useful again.

For the last10 years (2006-2015) the CET average is 10.1C, for the preceding 10 years (1996-2005) the average was 10.3; I would say the CET is mowing in predicted direction, but since I live in the CET area I am not looking forward to be correct !!

I dont understand the science behind CO2 making things warmer AND cooler ?? I thought cold was a lack of heat. How the heck does CO2 cause cooling using exactly the same ‘greenhouse’ effect as claimed for warming? If I apply heat energy to my kettle, I have yet to see the temperature drop.

The British MET have forecast that large areas of the world will cool over the next 5 years, though they still expect global average temperatures to remain high.

Your essay and comments in the subsequent thread do not mention that the MET forecast is an admission – indeed, it is a proclamation – that previous understandings and forecasts of global warming are wrong.

In 2007 the IPCC reported that global temperature was expected to rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system. But global temperature has not risen since 2000 (nor since 1999) and the MET now predicts little if any global temperature rise before 2021 while GHG emissions continue.

The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 when GHG emissions had been “within the range of the SRES scenarios” but there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years.

The emissions have continued “within the range of the SRES scenarios” but there has still not been any rise comparable to “0.2°C per decade” although
(b) we are now three-fourths into the “first two decades of the 21st century”
and
(b) the MET is forecasting that the “committed warming” will not have reappeared before the end of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared and the MET is saying it will not be found (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).

This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If – as the MET now forecasts – we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that the computer model projections of global warming are complete bunkum.

Lest we forget, I remind that the predicted rise of “0.2°C per decade” over “first two decades of the 21st century” is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7.

Having dropped the pick there on a couple of occasions I Love Valentia. A seriously rural site which needs to be homogenised with Paris to be credible /sarc. I’ve 100 dollars which says that 2017 will be ‘cooler’ than 1997. Takers?

It predicts significant warming for the next 5 years. Since they expect temperature average between +0.28 and +0.77°C, the mean is +0.525. Since 2015 is at +0.44°C it is an increase of +0.085°C in 5 years, equivalent to +0.17°C/decade. This warming rate is higher than the warming rate of HadCRUT4 for the 21st century so far, so they are predicting an increase in global warming rate for the next 5 years.

That is a pretty bold and risky prediction, since the past 15 years have included one strong and 2 moderate Los Niños, and 2 moderate Las Niñas. The next 5 years have a significant chance of having a moderate to strong La Niña and no El Niño which will make it impossible to increase the rate of warming. A much safer prediction would have been that for the period 2016-2020 no significant warming to moderate cooling is expected.

The MET’s prediction is only “bold” and “risky” because they know it will probably be wrong.

In 2007 the IPCC reported that model projections of global temperature rise would be “0.2°C per decade” averaged over the first two decades of this century. This warming rate would be a result of “committed warming” from GHGs already in the system.

The MET’s prediction of a +0.17°C/decade warming rate over the next 5 years is consistent with the IPCC prediction of “0.2°C per decade” averaged over the first two decades of this century except that no such warming has happened for the first 15 years.

The earth is unexplainably cooling. It is obvious to the public, the media, and the politicians that the entire AGW ‘science’ and general circulation modeling was incorrect. There is no AGW climate change issue. The ‘concern’ is global cooling. The MET has no idea why the planet is cooling or what will happen next.

MET Press Release: We found a couple of fundamental calculation mistakes with all of our general circulation models (GCMs). We had all (cult of CAGW members and fans) assumed the warming in the last 150 years had something to do with the increase in atmospheric CO2, however we have found basic mistakes made in the 1-dimension CO2 doubling no feedback calculations 30 years ago. The warming without feedbacks due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is less than 0.1C rather than 1.2C.

It is now clear (as the planet is cooling) that that the entire AGW ‘science’ was incorrect. Almost all of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes. It appears that sun is significantly different that the standard model. The sun is now operating in a mode which we did not think was possible.

We could of course be excused as no one could have known the standard model for the sun and stars was incorrect. We have no idea what is happening now or what will happen next.

(P.S. William: The Paleo climate record is a guide as what to expect next.)

Gizon then concludes “This result not only sheds a new light on the Sun – but also on our current inability to understand one of the most fundamental physical processes in the Sun and stars:

William: The fundamental problem with the solar model and the stellar model is not that observations indicate that convection velocities deep within the solar convection zone are 100 times less than expected which is impossible based on the assumed solar core temperature. The fact that convection velocities deep within the solar convection zone are 100 times slower than expected is only possible if massive amounts of energy are being generated by a non fusion mechanism and then transported from the core of the sun by a non convection mechanism to the surface of the sun. i.e. The physics of convection is not incorrect, the physics of what is happening in the core of the sun and stars is incorrect.

“This is a hundred times less than predicted by numerical models of solar convection”.

Gizon says “The unexpectedly small velocities measured using helioseismology are the most noteworthy helioseismology result since the launch of HMI”. Adds Birch, “There is no clear way to reconcile the observations and theory”. Gizon then concludes “This result not only sheds a new light on the Sun – but also on our current inability to understand one of the most fundamental physical processes in the Sun and stars: convection”.
“Our current theoretical understanding of magnetic field generation in the Sun relies on these motions being of a certain magnitude,” explained Shravan Hanasoge, an associate research scholar in geosciences at Princeton University and a visiting scholar at NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. “These convective motions are currently believed to prop up large-scale circulations in the outer third of the Sun that generate magnetic fields.”
“However, our results suggest that convective motions in the Sun are nearly 100 times smaller than these current theoretical expectations,” continued Hanasoge, also a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Plank Institute in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany. “If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.”

The Sun’s heat, generated by nuclear fusion in its core, is transported to the surface by convection in the outer third. However, our understanding of this process is largely theoretical—the Sun is opaque, so convection cannot be directly observed. As a result, theories largely rest on what we know about fluid flow and then applying them to the Sun, which is primarily composed of hydrogen, helium, and plasma.
The team of scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Princeton University, NASA’s Goddard Flight Center and New York University was able to determine the flow velocities at a depth of 55000 kilometres, which is eight percent of the solar radius. Surprisingly, the flow velocities of the plasma were found to be less than a few meters per second. Gizon puts this into perspective saying “This is a hundred times less than predicted by numerical models of solar convection”.

Adds Birch, “There is no clear way to reconcile the observations and theory”.
=========================
The traditional method is to claim that the observations are wrong.

A very interesting result because it argues strongly that the sun’s magnetic field cannot be caused by convection.

The problem with the standard model is that it assumes that the core of stars is hydrogen. But gravity makes this impossible for 2nd+ generation stars. Hydrogen is the lightest element. The heavier elements would have collected at the core of the sun during its formation and would have been there at the core during ignition of the sun.

So, since ignition would have occurred without hydrogen at the core, there is no reason to expect that the sun and other stars have somehow switched out their heavy cores for a hydrogen core.

And once you accept that the sun and other stars have heavy element cores, the standard model flies out the window.

The climate prognosticators have looked deeply into their new-and-improved crystal ball climate models, and closely examined the twice-baked (for robust flavor) tea leaves data. They’ve humbly beseeched the gods super-duper computers for assistance in their foretelling predictions of the future, and what they have seen is alarming; support for the Climatist industry will be declining, eventually going into a death-spiral.

Figure 3: Observed (black, from Met Office Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted (blue) global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1981-2010.
=====================
What would happen to the Met forecast if satellite temperatures had been used instead?

We already know there is a problem with the vast majority of models running hot. Maybe the problem isn’t the models. Maybe it is the data they have been fed. Garbage in garbage out.

Isn’t it time to consider all possibilities to find out why the models are running hot? The answer that seems to never be considered is data quality.

It would be interesting to see the same Met forecast done using the satellite and weather balloon datasets, and then compare the results against actuals in 5-10 years from now.

If the satellites turn out to give a better forecast that would say a lot about the relative quality of the surface temperature datasets. Such a result would argue strongly that the problem with the models is the Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC datasets.

What would happen to the Met forecast if satellite temperatures had been used instead?

We already know there is a problem with the vast majority of models running hot. Maybe the problem isn’t the models. Maybe it is the

data they have been fed. Garbage in garbage out.

Isn’t it time to consider all possibilities to find out why the models are running hot? The answer that seems to never be considered is data quality.

The entire conclusion of the models is that the “water-vapor-feedback-enhanced” CO2 forcing coefficient on temperature was concluded to be slightly above 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This value was based on global circulation models that began running in the early 80’s, and was “cemented in stone” by Hansen’s tricks in the July heat of Washington in 1988-89 when he turned off the A/C prior to his Congressional testimoney. (er, testimony.)

Regardless of all of the CAGW government money since, the CAGW community still “wants’ that 3.0 degrees C per doubling, and only now is slowly backing it down: 2.9, 2.8. 2.5 degrees per doubling are vaguely referred to in various papers. Projections of doom, of course, start at 3.0 degrees per doubling, project that to +4 degrees by 2100, then exaggerate the effect to +5 or +10 degrees C, and then study THAT +10 degrees to determine if Global Warming is a threat to ABC or XYZ.

But, look back at the RESULTS of these original global circulation models. If they were presented in 1988-1989 as published papers in the “science” literature, they were run as models in 1986-87 based on research and programming in 1985-87. But, at that time, the TOA radiation was 10 watts/m^2 HIGHER than what Dr Leif Svalgaard claims now is the correct TOA radiation. No wonder they project higher temperatures in the short run (and in the longer runs) than what occurred. His teams now use 1362 watt/m^2 as the average yearly solar radiation levels, but the previous “accepted” levels were as high as 1372. 1367 was accepted as recently as 2004.

If a “forcing” of +3 watts/m^2 from CO2 is going to produce +4 degrees warming, then a “drop” of 10 watts/m^2 in actual radiation received – compared to what the models expect – will certainly eliminate the predicted increase in temperature. Indeed, if their CGM models were correct in all of their calculations, then the world should be cooling substantially: It is actually receiving 4-88 watts LESS energy!

Look, the models – for as many billion dollars as are spent worshiping them in the temples of modern academia and government halls – can only calculate from what is pushed in their front modules. So, if the models in 1988-89 were accurate in both input parameters and in-process approximations, then they had to generate results based on the 1368-1372 watts/m^2 minimum TOA assumed correct in 1985-1990. If the real world TOA radiation is actually less – based on what Dr. S now tells us, then the models cannot be processing each step change in temperature right because the old started off so wrong.

RACookPE1978. Could you re-plot that graph with the Y axis starting at zero please? After all, people do not use a magnified view when navigating the world. We weill then see that there is no difference between any of your traces.

Fifty years ago or so, there was a celebrated fellow in Toronto who could predict what the sex of your child to be would be. The accuracy of is forecasts were legendary and through word of mouth alone he was making a fortune. He charged about 20 bucks or so – a lot in those days and the client had to go for a lengthy interview on the make up of both sides of the family, incidence of twins, whether the first born in the families were boys or girls, etc. all the while putting his varying speculations out there.

The client then had to stand up straight, walk across the room and back and toward and away from the consultant. All the while he kept up a patter, thinking out loud, weighing of all the factors to this point, mentioning the girl tendencies and the boy tendencies and finally saying this was a difficult choice. Early on he was convinced it was a boy but the signals for girl got stronger in the middle of the examination, although ‘boy’ remained in the picture but when we came to the walking past part, ‘girl’ was looking like the winner.

He consulted a complex chart going up columns and along rows and saying ‘boy’, ah ha, yes ‘girl’, boy, girl, girl, girl, boy. And then bringing his two index fingers together in a box in the chart, said girl,girl, boy, yes boy. Boy!

He then opened his ledger and opposite the client’s name wrote ‘GIRL’ in large letters. You don’t suppose Slingo and company are related to this trickster, do you?

Without trickery he could have simply offered “accurate or your money back.” He would have had 50% satisfied customers.

A gender prediction test kit for sale on Amazon has 936 customer reviews. 36% give 5 stars and 35% give no stars. A few give intermediate stars. This is exactly what you would expect for a test that gave random results. This test cost $62. It does say it is for entertainment purposes only.

The last 3 strong El Nino events were followed by La Nina conditions for 2.5 – 3 years. I see no reason to expect this one to be any different. Given the -PDO, falling AMO and approaching solar minimum over the same period it is not unlikely the cooling during the La Nina period to be stronger than any seen since the 1970s. While we are starting from a much higher base which means it won’t be as cool, the net result will likely take us back to a level not seen since the 1990s.

In the twenty-odd years that I’ve been playing attention to this entire AGW debacle, I’ve arrived at an axiom: it’s difficult to argue with someone who is working backwards from a conclusion and using double-talk to get there.

An old style country doctor was preferred for delivering babies in his small town because of his success in predicting the gender of the child. He would tell to Mum-to-be that she would have a girl (or boy, for another) and that for the record, he would write his prediction on his calendar at the due date.
In the 50% of cases when the birth showed him right, his reputation advanced. When a new Mum said he was wrong, he would show her his calendar record, which always agreed with his forecast. 100%.
Of course, he would tell the Mum-to-be one gender and write the opposite on his calendar.
There are no rules that prevent this technique in any type of forecasting.

Big problem a) Major la Nina brewing according to Scripps and Jamstec, and reality. Major warming around Australia 1st sign. b) Decadol shifts in oceans similar to late 1950s already on way. Current enso similar to 57-58.. Flip in AMO lurking also.
They know darn well where this is going after this el nino

Global warming is real, but it isn’t happening. But we should be careful and not relax our vigilance,. Even a thousand years of global cooling does not mean that global warming is not somewhere, happening.